One 77-year-old’s search for the truth: 9/11, election fraud, illegal wars, Wall Street criminality, a stolen nuke, the neocon wars, control of the U.S. government by global corporations, the unjustified assault on Social Security, media complicity, and the "Great Recession" about to become the second Great Depression. "The most important truths are hidden from us by the powerful few who strive to steal the American dream by keeping We the People in the dark."

They have now obtained UN Security Council as well as Syrian government approval for Russia’s military campaign.

They have also got the UN Security Council to scotch the myth of the “moderate jihadis” once and for all.

Back in September, when it became clear the Russians were intending to act in Syria, Russia Insider
predicted the Russians would try to get a Resolution from the UN
Security Council to give additional legal cover for their
military action.

This is in contrast to the US, which
avoids the Security Council whenever it can, and which usually prefers
to act unilaterally without a UN Security Council mandate.

Thus US bombing of the Islamic State in
Syria was doubly illegal under international law because it was carried
out without permission from either the UN Security Council or from the
Syrian government.

Russia’s military action by contrast is
completely legal. It has the permission of both the UN Security Council
and the Syrian government for it.

It took weeks for the Russians to get
their Security Council Resolution. This was because the US did
everything it could to stand in the way. However, after weeks of hard
work, Russia’s diplomats have finally got the Resolution Russia wanted.

What changed the position was the terrorist outrage in Paris.

After the Paris attack the French backed
Russia’s proposal for a UN Security Council Resolution. At that point
the US could no longer block it. The US cannot veto a Resolution backed
by its own ally France, especially in the immediate aftermath of a
terrorist attack.

Something that suggests some people in
the US might be unhappy with this development is the absence from the
Security Council table of one person who would normally be expected to
be there for such an important vote.

This was Samantha Power – the US’s UN
ambassador – a hardline liberal interventionist and one of the most
aggressive voices within the US administration calling for regime change
in Syria and confrontation with Russia.

Her relations with Vitaly Churkin,
Russia’s exceptionally able UN ambassador, are said to be poisonous (see
the photo at the top of this article).

It looks as if voting for the Resolution was more than Samantha Power could bear. That probably explains why she stayed away.

In her absence it was left to her deputy, Michele Sison – a career diplomat – to speak and vote for the US.

The full text of the Resolution – which is not limited to Syria – is below.

“(The Security Council) Calls upon Member States that
have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance
with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter,
as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on
the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria
and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and
suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as
Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings,
and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups”

The Security Council has not only backed
Russia’s military campaign (“all necessary means”), but it has also
made clear that Russia is fully entitled to extend this campaign to “all
other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with
Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups”.

The Resolution names amongst these terrorist groups the Al-Nusrah Front.

Russia is therefore fully authorised to bomb all the various jihadi groups in Syria that it is bombing.

Even the US has been forced to admit –
at least in the Security Council – that the talk of Russia bombing the
wrong people – the “moderate jihadis” – is nonsense.

“Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

“Reaffirming its respect for the
sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and unity of all States
in accordance with purposes and principles of the United
Nations Charter,

“Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms
and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to
international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are
criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and
by whomsoever committed,

“Determining that, by its violent
extremist ideology, its terrorist acts, its continued gross systematic
and widespread attacks directed against civilians, abuses of human
rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including those
driven on religious or ethnic ground, its eradication of cultural
heritage and trafficking of cultural property, but also its control over
significant parts and natural resources across Iraq and Syria and its
recruitment and training of foreign terrorist fighters whose threat
affects all regions and Member States, even those far from conflict
zones, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as
Da’esh), constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international
peace and security,

“Recalling that the Al-Nusrah Front
(ANF) and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities
associated with Al-Qaida also constitute a threat to international peace
and security,

“Determined to combat by all means this unprecedented threat to international peace and security,

“Noting the letters dated 25 June 2014
and 20 September 2014 from the Iraqi authorities which state that Da’esh
has established a safe haven outside Iraq’s borders that is a direct
threat to the security of the Iraqi people and territory,

“Reaffirming that Member States must
ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their
obligations under international law, in particular international human
rights, refugee and humanitarian law;

“Reiterating that the situation will
continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution
to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva
communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118
(2013), the joint statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on
Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the statement of the
International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November 2015,

“1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the
horrifying terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh
which took place on 26 June 2015 in Sousse, on 10 October 2015 in
Ankara, on 31 October 2015 over Sinaï, on 12 November 2015 in Beirut and
on 13 November 2015 in Paris, and all other attacks perpetrated by ISIL
also known as Da’esh, including hostage-taking and killing, and notes
it has the capability and intention to carry out further attacks and
regards all such acts of terrorism as a threat to peace and security;

“2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims
and their families and to the people and Governments of Tunisia, Turkey,
Russian Federation, Lebanon and France, and to all Governments whose
citizens were targeted in the above mentioned attacks and all other
victims of terrorism;

“3. Condemns also in the strongest terms the continued gross,
systematic and widespread abuses of human rights and violations of
humanitarian law, as well as barbaric acts of destruction and looting of
cultural heritage carried out by ISIL also known as Da’esh;

“4. Reaffirms that those responsible for committing or otherwise
responsible for terrorist acts, violations of international humanitarian
law or violations or abuses of human rights must be held accountable;

“5. Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to
take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in
particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international
human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the
control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and
coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts
committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and
all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated
with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United
Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the
International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security
Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support
Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have
established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;

“6. Urges Member States to intensify their efforts to stem the flow
of foreign terrorist fighters to Iraq and Syria and to prevent and
suppress the financing of terrorism, and urges all Members States to
continue to fully implement the above-mentioned resolutions;

“7. Expresses its intention to swiftly update the 1267 committee
sanctions list in order to better reflect the threat posed by ISIL also
known as Da’esh;

Logistics 101: Where Does ISIS Get Its Guns?

Since ancient times an army required significant logistical
support to carry out any kind of sustained military campaign. In ancient
Rome, an extensive network of roads was constructed to facilitate not
only trade, but to allow Roman legions to move quickly to where they
were needed, and for the supplies needed to sustain military operations
to follow them in turn.

In the late 1700′s French general, expert strategist, and leader Napoleon Bonaparte would note that, “an army marches on its stomach,”
referring to the extensive logistical network required to keep an army
fed, and therefore able to maintain its fighting capacity. For the
French, their inability to maintain a steady supply train to its forces
fighting in Russia, and the Russians’ decision to burn their own land
and infrastructure to deny it from the invading forces, ultimately
defeated the French.

Nazi Germany would suffer a similar fate when it too overextended its
logical capabilities during its invasion of Russia amid Operation
Barbarossa. Once again, invading armies became stranded without limited
resources before being either cut off and annihilated or forced to
retreat.

The other half of the war is logistics. Without a steady stream of
supplies, armies no matter how strong or determined will be overwhelmed
and defeated. What explains then ISIS’ fighting prowess and the immense
logitical networks it would need to maintain it?

And in modern times during the Gulf War in the 1990′s an extended
supply line trailing invading US forces coupled with an anticipated
clash with the bulk of Saddam Hussein’s army halted what was otherwise a
lighting advance many mistakenly believed could have reached Baghdad
had there been the political will. The will to conquer was there, the
logistics to implement it wasn’t.

The lessons of history however clear they may be, appear to be
entirely lost on an either supremely ignorant or incredibly deceitful
troupe of policymakers and news agencies across the West.

ISIS’ Supply Lines

The current conflict consuming the Middle East, particularly in Iraq
and Syria where the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) is operating and
simultaneously fighting and defeating the forces of Syria, Lebanon,
Iraq, and Iran, we are told, is built upon a logistical network based on
black market oil and ransom payments.

The fighting capacity of ISIS is that of a nation-state. It controls
vast swaths of territory straddling both Syria and Iraq and not only is
able to militarily defend and expand from this territory, but possesses
the resources to occupy it, including the resources to administer the
populations subjugated within it.

For military analysts, especially former members of Western armed
forces, as well as members of the Western media who remember the convoys
of trucks required for the invasions of Iraq in the 1990s and again in
2003, they surely must wonder where ISIS’ trucks are today. After all,
if the resources to maintain the fighting capacity exhibited by ISIS
were available within Syrian and Iraqi territory alone, then certainly
Syrian and Iraqi forces would also posses an equal or greater fighting
capacity but they simply do not.And were ISIS’
supply lines solely confined within Syrian and Iraqi territory, then
surely both Syrian and Iraqi forces would utilize their one advantage –
air power – to cut front line ISIS fighters from the source of their
supplies. But this is not happening and there is a good reason why.

Recent maps showing ISIS’ territory show obvious supply lines leading
from Jordan and Turkey. Should Syria and its allies manage to cut these
supply lines, one wonders just how long ISIS’ so-far inexplicable
winning streak would last.

SIS’ supply lines run precisely where Syrian and Iraqi air power
cannot go. To the north and into NATO-member Turkey, and to the
southwest into US allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Beyond these borders
exists a logistical network that spans a region including both Eastern
Europe and North Africa.

Terrorists and weapons left over from NATO’s intervention in Libya in
2011 were promptly sent to Turkey and then onto Syria – coordinated by
US State Department officials and intelligence agencies in Benghazi – a
terrorist hotbed for decades.

From offices at secret locations, American
intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons,
including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel
commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as
they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition
of anonymity.

And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other
factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or
“moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were
truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the
battlefield.

Recent revelations have revealed that
as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only
anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria
and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and
contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.Just How Extensive Are ISIS’ Supply Lines? While many across the West play willfully ignorant
as to where ISIS truly gets their supplies from in order to maintain its
impressive fighting capacity, some journalists have traveled to the
region and have video taped and reported on the endless convoys of
trucks supplying the terrorist army.

Were these trucks traveling to and from factories in seized ISIS
territory deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory? No. They were
traveling from deep within Turkey, crossing the Syrian border with
absolute impunity, and headed on their way with the implicit protection
of nearby Turkish military forces. Attempts by Syria to attack these
convoys and the terrorists flowing in with them have been met by Turkish
air defenses.

Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) published the
first video report from a major Western media outlet illustrating that
ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but
billions of dollars worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO
member Turkey’s borders via hundreds of trucks a day.

German national broadcaster DW reported on convoys of hundreds of trucks
per day crossing into Syria from NATO-member Turkey with impunity,
enroute to ISIS terrorists, finally explaining the source of the
terrorist army’s fighting capacity. The trucks were reported by DW to
have originated from deep within Turkish territory – most likely NATO
air bases and ports.

Looking at maps of ISIS-held territory and reading action reports of
its offensive maneuvers throughout the region and even beyond, one might
imagine hundreds of trucks a day would be required to maintain this
level of fighting capacity. One could imagine similar convoys crossing
into Iraq from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Similar convoys are likely
passing into Syria from Jordan.

In all, considering the realities of logistics and their timeless
importance to military campaigns throughout human history, there is no
other plausible explanation to ISIS’s ability to wage war within Syria
and Iraq besides immense resources being channeled to it from abroad.

If an army marches on its stomach, and ISIS’ stomachs are full of
NATO and Persian Gulf State supplies, ISIS will continue to march long
and hard. The key to breaking the back of ISIS, is breaking the back of
its supply lines. To do that however, and precisely why the conflict has
dragged on for so long, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and others would have to
eventually secure the borders and force ISIS to fight within Turkish,
Jordanian, and Saudi territory – a difficult scenario to implement as
nations like Turkey have created defacto buffer zones within Syrian
territory which would require a direct military confrontation with
Turkey itself to eliminate.

With Iran joining the fray with an alleged deployment of thousands of
troops to bolster Syrian military operations, overwhelming principles
of deterrence may prevent Turkey enforcing its buffer zones.

What we are currently left with is NATO literally holding the region
hostage with the prospect of a catastrophic regional war in a bid to
defend and perpetuate the carnage perpetrated by ISIS within Syria,
fully underwritten by an immense logistical network streaming out of
NATO territory itself.

One reason is that NATO governments lie every time that they open their mouths.

A second reason is that Turkey’s claim that the SU-24 was in Turkey’s
airspace for 17 seconds but only traveled 1.15 miles means that the
SU-24 was flying at stall speed! The entire Western media was too
incompetent to do the basic math!

A third reason is that, assuming Turkey’s claim of a 17 second
airspace violation is true, 17 seconds is not long enough for a Turkish
pilot to get clearance for such a serious and reckless act as shooting
down a Russian military aircraft. If the SU-24 was flying at a normal
speed rather than one that would be unable to keep the aircraft aloft,
the alleged airspace vioation would not have been long enough to be
noticed. A shootdown had to have been pre-arranged. The Turks, knowing
that the Russians were foolishly trusting to the agreement that there be
no air to air encounters, told pilots to look for an opportunity. In
my recent article, I gave a reason for this reckless act: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/11/24/turkey-has-destroyed-russias-delusion-of-western-cooperation-paul-craig-roberts/

Turkey’s explanation to the UN Security Council gives itself away as
a lie. The letter states: “This morning (24 November) 2 SU-24 planes,
the nationality of which are unknown have approached Turkish national
airspace. The Planes in quesion have been warned 10 times during a
period of 5 minutes via ‘Emergency’ channel and asked to change their
headings south immediately.”

As SU-24 are Russian aircraft, as Turkey is able to identify that the
aircraft are SU-24s, how then can the nationality of the aircraft be
unknown? Would Turkey risk shooting down a US or Israeli aircraft by
firing at an unknown aircraft? If the SU-24 takes 17 seconds to fly 1.15
miles, the SU-24s would have only traveled 20.29 miles in five minutes.
Does anyone believe that a supersonic aircraft can fly at stall speed
for 17 seconds, much less for five minutes?

Do not expect any truth from any Western government or from any
Western media. Governments and media know that the Western populations
are uneducated, unaware, and can be relied upon to accept any
preposterous story. In the West the Matrix has a firm grip. The
Russians need to wake up to this fact.

NPR this morning confirmed that the media is a government propaganda
organ. The Diane Rehm show on NPR presented us with a group of talking
heads. Only one was informed, a professor at the Middle East Institute
of the London School of Economics. The rest of the “experts” were the
typical dumbshit Americans. They repeated all of the lies. “Russia is
attacking everyone except ISIS.” How can there be anyone but ISIS to
attack when the US general overseeing the area recently told Congress
that “only 5” of our trained “rebels” remained? Yet the myth of
“moderate rebels” is kept alive by these liars.

“The refugees are fleeing the brutal Assad.” Notice that it is
always Assad who is brutal, not ISIS which has cut out opponents hearts
and eaten them and routinely cuts off peoples heads and commits the most
atrocious atrocities. Here we have “experts” blaming Assad. The
“experts” said that the refugees are fleeing from Assad not from ISIS.
The refugee problem is Assad’s fault, not the fault of ISIS. It is all
Assad’s fault because he doesn’t give up and turn Syria over to
Washington’s ISIS henchmen.

There was no acknowledgement from the “experts” that ISIS is a
Washington creation or that until the Paris attack Washington was
strongly backing ISIS with both words and weapons against the Russian
air attacks that caught both Washington and ISIS off guard. This is
extraordinary considering the fact that US responsibility for ISIS was
acknowledged on TV by the former head of the Pentagon’s Defense
Intelligence Agency. https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/

Gullible Americans who give money to NPR are supporting lies and
propaganda that have resulted in the deaths and dislocation of millions
of peoples and that are leading to WWIII. The Western media whores are
complicit in the crimes, because they fail their responsibility to hold
government accountable and make it impossible for valid information to
reach people. The Western media serves as cheerleaders for death and
destruction.

Press Releases

Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, Austin Scott Introduce Legislation to End Illegal U.S. War to Overthrow Syrian Government of Assad

November 19, 2015

Washington, DC—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep.
Austin Scott (R-GA), both members of the House Armed Services Committee,
introduced a bipartisan bill today to end U.S. efforts to overthrow the
Syrian Arab Republic led by President Bashar al-Assad.

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a twice-deployed combat veteran, said the intent of the bill is to “Bring an immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard explained,“The U.S. is waging two
wars in Syria. The first is the war against ISIS and other Islamic
extremists, which Congress authorized after the terrorist attack on
9/11. The second war is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian
government of Assad.

“The war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually
helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of
overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of
Syria—which will simply increase human suffering in the region,
exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world.
Also, the war to overthrow Assad is illegal because Congress never
authorized it.”

Congressman Austin Scott said, “Our primary mission
should be the war against ISIS, al Qaeda, and radical Islamic extremists
that have operations both inside and outside of Syria and Iraq. Those
groups have carried out attacks on American allies, and are currently
threatening attacks on our homeland. This represents a clear and
present danger to our citizens, and I support eliminating these radical
Islamic terrorists through any means necessary. Working to remove Assad
at this stage is counter-productive to what I believe our primary
mission should be.”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “Here are 10 reasons the U.S. must end its war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad:

1. Because if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of
Assad, it will open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic
extremists to take over all of Syria. There will be genocide and
suffering on a scale beyond our imagination. These Islamic extremists
will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware
of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before.

2. Because overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad is the goal
of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremist groups. We should not be
allying ourselves with these Islamic extremists by helping them achieve
their goal because it is against the security interests of the United
States and all of civilization.

3. Because the money and weapons the CIA is providing to overthrow
the Syrian government of Assad are going directly or indirectly into the
hands of the Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates,
al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who are the actual enemies of the
United States. These groups make up close to 90 percent of the
so-called opposition forces, and are the most dominant fighters on the
ground.

4. Because our efforts to overthrow Assad has increased and will
continue to increase the strength of ISIS and other Islamic extremists,
thus making them a bigger regional and global threat.

5. Because this war has exacerbated the chaos and carnage in Syria
and, along with the terror inflicted by ISIS and other Islamic extremist
groups fighting to take over Syria, continues to increase the number of
Syrians forced to flee their country.

6. Because we should learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and Libya
that U.S. wars to overthrow secular dictators (Saddam Hussein and
Muammar Gaddafi) cause even more chaos and human suffering and open the
door for Islamic extremists to take over in those countries.

7. Because the U.S. has no credible government or government leader
ready to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria.

8. Because even the ‘best case’ scenario—that the U.S. successfully
overthrows the Syrian government of Assad—would obligate the United
States to spend trillions of dollars and the lives of American service
members in the futile effort to create a new Syria. This is what we
have been trying to do in Iraq for twelve years, and we still have not
succeeded. The situation in Syria will be much more difficult than in
Iraq.

9. Because our war against the Syrian government of Assad is
interfering with our being one-pointedly focused on the war to defeat
ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the other Islamic extremists who are our actual
enemy.

10. Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in
direct conflict with Russia and increases the likelihood of war between
the United States and Russia and the possibility of another world war.”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “To destroy ISIS
will take international alliances. If we are serious about defeating
ISIS and solving the refugee problem, we’ll work in partnership with
Russia, France, and anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and
affiliated Islamic extremist organizations worldwide.

“The problem is, because the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian
government of Assad and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it
is impossible for us to have an effective, cooperative relationship
with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on overthrowing
Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy ISIS.”

“We must immediately end the illegal, counter-productive war to
overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and ally ourselves with any
countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic extremists who pose
a genuine threat to civilization,” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard concluded.

Where Does ISIS Get All Those Tanks, Weapons And Shiny New Toyota Trucks?

U.S. Treasury Dept. wonders

Yikes! Those evil, marauding terrorists from ISIS
are still at large, but fear not: ISIS can’t escape from the U.S. and
our allies for long. And when we get ’em, we’re going to kick their
cartoonist/woman/gay/Christian-hating Jihadi butts from here until
Sunday.

There’s just one problem. If we’re
at war with ISIS, why do we keep supplying them with tanks, weapons,
Humvees and shiny new Toyota trucks?CNN reports:

“They’re hard to miss. Packed with ISIS fighters and
heavy weapons, Toyota pickup trucks and SUV’s are featured prominently
in ISIS propaganda videos.”

According toABC, the U.S. Treasury Dept.’s Terror Financing unit has finally
taken notice of the endless parades of shiny, new Toyota trucks
starring in ISIS’s propaganda videos, and they’ve launched an
investigation. Toyota’s U.S. spokesman Ed Lewis told reporters this is
part of a larger inquiry into supply chains and capital flows in the
Middle East. Lewis promised Toyota’s full cooperation, and assures us that they’d never sell to terrorists.

“Toyota has a strict policy to not sell vehicles to
potential purchasers who may use or modify them for paramilitary or
terrorist activities, and we have procedures and contractual commitments
in place to help prevent our products from being diverted for
unauthorized military use.”

Whew. What a relief.

Toyota trucks: The jihadists’ truck of choice.

CNN tracked down Jonathan Schanzer — who
used to track terrorist finances for the U.S. Treasury Dept. and who’s
now with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies — to find out more.
Schanzer explained that rugged outdoorsmen and off-roaders aren’t the
only ones who love their Toyota trucks:

“Toyotas is the truck that Jihadists choose for when they
want to go to war. It’s the same thing with Kalashnikovs [Russian
automatic rifles more commonly known in the U.S. as AK-47s].”

And how to these ISIS terrorists get
their hands on these bad boys? Schanzer suspects they just boldly walk
into the car dealerships and pay cash!

“I think they’re buying them, probably, through formal
channels. They’re probably going right into the dealerships and
purchasing them, and not identifying as ISIS. Who would?”

Oh, and although Toyotas are the
Jihadist’s truck of choice, they won’t object to a Ford or two. We’d
love to see the look on this U.S. plumber’s face after seeing what
Schanzer suspects ISIS picked up at an auction. As if to thumb their
noses at us, they didn’t even bother to remove the former owner’s
information from the front passenger side’s door.

Schanzer adds ISIS’s avid Toyota truck
acquisition is just one example of how ISIS operates like “a combination
of a mafia gang and a major corporation.” In other words, like a major
corporation.

Toyota trucks aren’t all ISIS has managed to buy, capture or scavenge from us. In June, CNBC reported that so far we’ve accidentally furnished the Islamic Statewith at least $219.7 million worth of weapons, vehicles and other military supplies and gear — and that’s just the stuff we know about.

Based on various reports, CNBC came up
with the following laundry list of supplies the U.S. has so kindly
provided to ISIS so far.

2,300 Humvee armored vehicles at $70,000 each: $16 million

40 M1A1 Abram tanks at $4.3 million each: $172 million

52 M198 Howitzer mobile gun systems at $527,337 each: $2.7 million

74,000 Army machine guns at $4,000 each: $29 million

TOTAL: $219.7 MILLION in military weapons, vehicles, and other supplies and gear for ISIS.

How does the Islamic State get hold of
all these U.S. weapons? We deliver them, either directly or through the
tattered remnants of Iraq’s military. Jeremy Salt, a political analyst
in Ankara, Turkey, gives RT.Com quite the scathing earful:

“Do you think the Islamic State’s advance would have been
so successful without access to this U.S. military hardware by mistake,
by default? Let me just briefly revise the history of American blunder
over the past couple of years with regard to weapons ending up in the
hands of Islamic State.”

Salt then reminded us of our nation’s major blunders for supplying weapons to ISIS for the past couple of years.

Accidental air-dropping of weapons and supplies intended for the Syrian Kurds into Islamic State territory.

This didn’t just happen once, it happened several times.

Weapons and supplies seized by ISIS during the falls ofMosul (Iraq), Ramadi (Iraq), AND Palmyra (Syria).

Salt doesn’t even bother explaining how the George W. Bush administration created ISIS
by invading Iraq on false pretenses and chasing off all those heavily
armed and well-trained Baathist soldiers. But he does ask how it’s even
possible that U.S. intelligence and the military — both of which are
among the most sophisticated in the world — could have possibly NOT seen what was coming.

What Salt says here about ISIS’s routing of Palmyra also applies to the sack of Mosul and Ramadi.

“Are we seriously to believe the United States couldn’t
see them coming? Didn’t see those pickup trucks racing across the Syrian
Desert? When they create massive plumes of dust, for one thing? Then
they get to Palmyra, and they take over the city.”

Salt has a point. How could we have possibly missed miles
of vehicles chock-full of masked ISIS militants waving guns and black
flags while churning up choking clouds of desert dust visible from miles
around? It’s almost as though we’ve ignored all this on purpose.

As for President Barack Obama, he’s made
some smart moves. But how can he slam the brakes on a runaway crazy
train that’s been lurching headlong for decades? After all, Reagan’s the one who armed and trained Al Qaeda back when they fought the former USSR as the Mujahideen resistance fighters. Also, we helped Saddam Hussein take power in Iraq in 1963,
and Hussein was on the CIA’s payroll since at least 1959. And then we
overthrew him and allowed the region to devolve into chaos because
George W. Bush isn’t into “nation building.”

Here’s the video with the news report from RT on ISIS’s acquisition of U.S. military supplies, weapons, gear and vehicles.

Some people who are not inclined to believe the official story of the
Paris attack are troubled by the question why Muslim suicide bombers
would blow themselves up for a false flag attack. The answer to this
question is very simple. But first we should dispose of the question
whether suicide bombers did blow themselves up. Is this something that
we know, or is it part of the story that we are told? For example, we
were told that during 9/11 passengers in hijacked airliners used their
cell phones to call relatives, but experts have testified that the
technology of the time did not permit cell phone calls from airliners at
those altitudes.

To dispose of the question whether we have or do not have any real
evidence that suicide bombers blew themselves up, I will assume that
they did.

So we have suicide bombers blowing themselves up.

Now turn to the question that troubles some doubters: Why would
suicide bombers blow themselves up for the sake of a false flag attack?

As I said, the answer is simple: Why assume that the suicide bombers knew who was organizing the attack?
There seems to be abundant evidence that ISIL is a US creation, one
that is still dependent on US active or passive support—thus the
conflict between Putin and Washington over attacking ISIL. ISIL seems
to be what Washington used to overthrow the government in Libya and
afterward was sent by Washington to Syria to overthrow Assad.
Obviously, Washington has ISIL infiltrated. Washington has long proven
is ability to use Islamic extremists. As Washington used them in
Afghanistan against the Soviets and in Libya and Syria against
independent governments, Washington used them in Paris. By my last
count, the FBI on 150 occasions has successfully deceived people into
participating into FBI orchestrated “terror plots.”

Now let us move to some bigger questions. Why do terrorists attack
ordinary innocent people who have neither awareness of “their”
government’s actions or control over them? The victims of 9/11 were not
the neocons and members of the Washington establishment, whose policies
in the Middle East justified attacks on their persons. Ditto for the
Boston Marathon Bombing, and ditto for the Paris attacks. Innocents were
the victims, not those who have taken Muslim lives.

Historically, terror attacks are not on the innocent but on the
rulers and those who are guilty. For example, it was the Archduke of
Austria/Hungary who was assassinated by the Serbian terrorist, not
ordinary people blown up or shot down in a street cafe.

It is interesting that terrorists attacks attributed to Muslims only
fall upon ordinary people, not upon the political elites who oppress the
Muslims. In past years on several occasions I have remarked in my
columns on the total vulnerability of the neoconservatives to
assassination. Yet there has been not a single attack by terrorists on a
neocon life, and the neocons are the source of the violence that
Washington has unleashed on the Muslim world. The neocons walk around
without threat free as birds.

How believable is it that Muslim terrorists take their ire out on
innocents when the President of France himself, who has sent military
forces to murder Muslims, was sitting in the attacked stadium and could
easily have been eliminated by a suicide bomber? Now let us turn to questions of identification of the alleged “Paris
terrorists.” Is it realistic to suppose that the millions of refugees
from Washington and its European vassals’ wars in the Middle East have
passports? Were these millions of refugees expecting to be driven by
White Civilization’s Bombs out of their countries and thus had prepared
themselves with passports in order to flee?

Did they write on their passport applications that they were going to be visiting Europe?Was the beleaguered country, their homeland, under full military assault, able to process all these millions of passports?

What sort of dumbshit Western media goes along with the passport
story — a media well paid to lie for Washington’s hegemony and crimes?

One final question for skeptics. Where are the photographs of the
terrorists during their terrorizing? Surrounding the scenes of violence
there were not only abundant security cameras, but also hundreds, even
thousands, of people with cell phones that have cameras. With all of
these photos, how is it possible that the authorities do not know if
some terrorists escaped, and if so, who they are and what they look
like? Why are the authorities relying on fake passports for photos of
the terrorists?

and it is the terrorism of Western governments against Western peoples.

In Paris Tragedy, It’s Necessary to Know Who’s Pulling the Strings
Putin demands a real investigation, but the Western establishment has already decided how to use the massacre
(German Economic News)

Originally appeared in German at German Economic News. Translated by David Norris

The attacks on Paris could lead to a massive military operation of
NATO in Syria. Russia’s president Putin has consequently asked the
question as to who is pulling the strings. The question is related to
the Russian military successes in Syria – and with the efforts of the
US-Neocons and intelligence agencies to seize the opportunity to extend
the war in Syria as quickly as possible.

Once again Russian’s president, Vladimir Putin, has posed the right
question: Who were pulling the strings in the Paris attacks? Putin,
according to TASS, has given the French his full support in “solving the
crime, as well as identifying both those who carried it out and those
pulling the strings”.

What do we actually know?

Basically, we know very little. We should note: As unprepared for the
attacks as the French security services were, they were quick with
ready answers on the day. Said to be responsible were the terror-militia
“Islamic State” (IS). President Hollande acknowledged this and declared
war on IS. However, Charles Winter of the Quilliam Foundation,
specialists on Syria and IS, points out that it cannot yet be shown
whether the attacks were directly organised by IS or were “inspired” by
the terrorists. It is quite possible that IS, currently under enormous
pressure in Syria, have simply claimed the attacks for themselves in
order to induce fighting spirit in their followers. The New York Times
cites Bruce Hoffman of the Center for Security Studies at the University
of Georgetown: the organisation of the attacks points rather to
Al-Qaeda. Hoffman recalls the message of Osama bin Laden, who challenged
the supporters of terror to carry out attacks such as that in Mumbai –
that is to say, on “soft targets” among the civilian population.

The information supplied by the French investigators should be
treated with caution: a Syrian passport was found on one of the
terrorists, who blew himself up. In security service circles, it is
thought to be highly unlikely that a suicide bomber would carry a
passport in his pocket whilst carrying out this final action. In this
connection the attacks on Charlie Hebdo come to mind: also on that
occasion the killers had by chance forgotten their passports in their
getaway car. Until this day, it remains unclear, who were pulling the
strings, who had commissioned the killers. At the same time, the Greek
security service asserts that the killer came into Europe along with
refugees. In this way fear of refugees is fomented – very much in the
interest of Turkey, that can then drive yet higher the price demanded.

Putin has called for close co-operation in Syria by the world
community: this he is doing from a prevailing position of military
strength. After a successful offensive in the south of Aleppo, the
Syrians supported by Russia and Iran are now just a few kilometres
outside Saraqib, the most important intersection of the motorway from
Damascus and Lattakia to Aleppo.

Mercenaries of the Americans who were put together for the storm
against Damascus and Lattakia where the Russian military base lies,
north of Hama and 50 kilometres from Lattakia, will within a few days be
encircled. They consist of several hundred Turkish and US military
advisers and mercenaries financed by the US. Turkey had already in the
past weeks led IS fighters to safety from the Russians. A historical
example of this retreat is to be found in the encirclement of the
Taliban in the north of Afghanistan. At that time Bush had tolerated an
airlift by the Pakistanis for the top Taliban and military advisers ―
5000 fighters died later in the attack. Now a similar fate awaits IS
between Kweires and Aleppo.

Here, however, there is no suitable airfield. This is why the
Americans urgently need to be militarily active if the mercenaries and
the advisers are not to be worn down by the Syrians and the Russians.

For this reason the US-Neocons, the US generals and NATO used the
attacks on Paris within a few hours to put US President Barack Obama
under pressure: Obama wants to pull out of Syria. This is interpreted by
the Neocons and the generals in the light of the Paris attacks as
weakness. The military analyst Jerry Hendrix from the Center for a New
American Century says in Time Magazine: “The Paris attacks could be a
catalysing event that will shake the international community into
action.” William Kristol joins in the criticism of Obama’s Syria
strategy against IS, writing in the Weekly Standard, he calls for a hard
line clamp down ― that is, the intervention of ground troops. Kori
Schake of the Hoover Institute writes in Politico “Obama’s strategy of
containment of IS is wrong.” He calls for the extermination if IS, not
just their containment. This can only be accomplished using
ground troops.

NATO general secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, declared himself ready to
intervene and invited Paris openly to invoke the alliance treaty. In
this case the NATO partners are obliged to become active in Syria. The
Bild-Zeitung, whose position appears to be closely aligned to that of
NATO, has already asked: “After the terror in Paris – must we now go to
war?” The chairman of the German Reservist Association and CDU
parliamentarian, Roderich Kieswetter, said to the Bild-Zeitung, “I shall
support that we too should deploy our military capabilities in Syria.
We could together support our allies by sending in our reconnaissance
Tornados.” The Bild-Zeitung summed up the NATO efforts with the
headline: “Preparedness for War Grows”.

Turkey could play a significant role in the deployment of ground troops.
For months now she has been conducting her own dubious war, against
international law, by fighting against the PKK on Iraqi and Syrian
territory. Erdogan claims to know terrorism and its effects from
personal experience. The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan said
after the Paris attacks, talking must now come to an end. He demanded
massive military strikes. The logic of “my terrorist is good, yours is
bad” should no longer apply. “Terrorism recognises no religion, no
nation, no race, no fatherland.” Yet with exactly the same words just a
few weeks previously in Brussels, Erdogan had accused the EU of
insufficient support for the fight against the PKK.

The advance of the Russians in Syria brings some difficulty for Erdogan:
He desperately needs relief in order to carry through with his own
interests in Syria. As a NATO land standing faithfully with France,
attacks could afford him some legitimacy to march into Syria with ground
troops. Erdogan can in any case mobilise far quicker than the USA who
have certain democratic procedures to follow before they can send in the
troops. Until they are completed, it could by then be too late because
of the successes of the Russians.

Vladimir Putin is himself a security service man. He will therefore know the state of play.

The Russians are de facto the only ones, who at the moment are actually
fighting against IS. At the G20 summit in Turkey it would with some
certainty come to a meeting between Putin and Obama. Ironically, Putin
is the closest ally of Obama, above all against the Neocons and the
generals. At the summit, the refugee crisis is also to be discussed,
with which Erdogan blackmails the EU and also the German Chancellor, who
is in this matter completely overwhelmed.

The refugees as to cause play only a subordinate role with respect to
the Paris terror. In reality the terrorists who shot indiscriminately
all around with Kalashnikovs have no need to hide themselves in the
stream of refugees. However, with the launching of the assertion that
two killers travelled with the refugees to Europe, the fear within the
EU of the “threat” from refugees is further fomented. In this way the EU
can be forced to agree to a military campaign and authorise Erdogan to
be the spearhead.

It must now be decisive whether Putin and Obama can agree on a common
way to proceed and whether he can keep the Neocons from his throat.
John McCain particularly has built up a tremendous amount of pressure
and demanded on Friday that IS be “destroyed”. Secretary of State, John
Kerry has only spoken in very general terms about terrorists and has not
mentioned IS as the culprits in Paris, as the New York Times analyses.

Putin’s central demand, that also those pulling the strings with
respect to Paris must be sought out and punished, is likely, however, in
the confusion of war in Syria to come to nothing. Shedding light on
what happened, as with the shooting down of MH17, is of less interest
than making this out to be a criminal act that can be utilised for one’s
own geopolitical advantage.

About Me

B.S. in Physics, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1960 Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical
Society. Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Fellow, American Ceramic Society. Member, Geological Society of America, Research Physicist at Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washington, DC,
1967-2001. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, 1997. Invited Professor of Research at Universités
de Paris-6 & 7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute
of Technology, 2000-2004. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and
Engineering, University of Arizona, 2004-2005. Consultancy: impactGlass
research international, 2005-present.
Winner, one national and two international research awards and honored
by Brown University with a "Distinguished Graduate School Alumnus
Award." Author, 198 papers in peer-reviewed journals and books, Principal Author of 114 of these.